Conservative America is back

One of the most historic comebacks in United States’ political history – this is how the victory of president-elect Donald Trump is hailed. Trump won with a final tally of 312 electoral votes, defeating rival and incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris who garnered 226. Trump will serve as the 47th POTUS, signaling a significant shift in the country’s political landscape.

The expected tight electoral college contest race did not happen. Alan Lichtman, American University history professor and widely touted as “political Nostradamus” was at a loss for words, according to reports. His 13-point system successfully predicted all previous presidential contests except for the 2000 Bush-Gore tussle. But this time, he missed the mark.

This decisive victory for populist and often polarizing leader Donald Trump paves the way for his stunning return to the White House. Trump’s win is a confirmation of the growing regionalization of American politics that Democratic candidate Kamala Harris failed to address.

For all of her qualifications and accomplishments, Harris struggled to connect with voters on day-to-day concerns that resonate deeply and keep ordinary Americans awake at night – gut-level issues such as employment, immigration, crime, housing, and, most importantly, inflation.

Throughout her campaign, Harris’ rhetoric largely focused on national and global issues such as climate change and social justice. While these issues position the United States as the global leader, they failed to speak to working class Americans whose primary concerns are economic stability and the rising cost of living.

I was in New York just a few months ago and during my visit, I was surprised at the skyrocketing prices and the prevalence of homelessness. Though New York is a known Democratic bailiwick, still the economic situation, particularly inflation, was felt. What hits the pocket hits the stomach, plain and simple.

The situation seems to have drastically changed since my last visit in sometime in the late 90s and in my short time there, I got a sense of how Americans are feeling the pinch from current economic conditions.

Harris’ campaign focused on ideological priorities that, while it may be important, does not perhaps resonate with majority of American voters – many of whom are beset with on-ground and everyday struggles to pay attention to emerging and prevailing global threats and trends.

In contrast, Trump’s messaging connected with many voters on a regional and personal level – presenting himself as a champion of American workers who “understands” their most pressing needs. His campaign emphasized economic revival and promised tax cuts on benefits, tips and overtime pay. He pledged decisive actions on immigration and outlined plans to address crime- issues which struck a chord with voters anxious about job security and public safety.

For all his controversial and polarizing rhetoric, Trump managed to engage American voters, particularly the working class, in a way that assured them their everyday struggles were his top priority. By addressing their economic and personal anxieties directly, he established a sense of trust, making them feel that their needs would remain central to his policy agenda.

While doing so, Trump’s campaign portrayed Harris as out of touch and detached from the real national concerns. Her focus on diversity, social progress, and even gender identities all seemed to be abstract concepts that were mostly interpreted as ideals instead of actionable policies.

Harris’ messaging was also overly uniform from a national perspective – largely satisfying liberal-leaning Americans in urban areas but alienating social conservatives in rural communities. This kind of rhetoric, while valuable for those with advanced education, failed to take into consideration the unique regional concerns in the US.

Another determining factor of Trump’s successful campaign was how his rival Harris was painted as a continuation of the increasingly unpopular Biden administration. In doing so, Trump was able to present himself as a change-maker, ironic as it may seem coming from a former president. He promised to restore America to perceived better days, echoing much of the citizens’ deep-seated frustrations and desires for change.

Trump was also able to extend his appeal beyond the original base of support when he first won in 2016. He was able to bring the young voters and minority groups to his side, capitalizing on their dissatisfaction at the thought of being underserved by the Biden administration.

There’s no question that Harris has the political expertise and experience to go head-to-head against Trump in an election but instead of offering pragmatic solutions and matter-of-fact proposals, her message was largely drowned in idealistic rhetoric that lacked connection.

In the end, Harris’ campaign seemed to be a campaign for the global citizen and not the ordinary American.

And like it or not, Trump succeeded at connecting with the American voter – making them feel seen,heard, and understood – enough to catapult him back to power. In the end the message of the Trump team resonated to voters and reversed the losses it suffered from the Dems in 2020 as it captured the battleground states on his way back to the White House.